Overland Content Feedback Thread

Nagastani

Harvokaan wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Nagastani wrote: »

Lastly, seeing how everyone doesn't feel this way, I get that and respect your differences. However, I hope you guys aren't trying to intentionally shout people down on here who feel similar to others as well as myself. Please recognize this is now the only thread left in existence for anyone to voice an opinion in favor of making change and reading thru the threads its like some of you guys are trying to shut us out and you shouldn't do that and anyone who agrees not just with me but would like to see some form of meaningful change, in any way, to overland content should be welcome to come here and make your voice be heard also. Everyone is not always going to agree.

Everyone has the same opportunity to present their feedback, and as you stated not everyone is going to agree. I believe that debating our different views can lead to compromise. Just disagreeing with someone is not shutting them out.

I remember how bad things were before One Tamriel, and the difficulty was a huge factor in my decision to leave the game back then, because I found it impossible to progress. Because of this I am against any suggestions I feel would revert the game I now love back to that state.

Multiple times in this thread (and others) ppl were explaining that the game was never in state of having an optional vet difficulty because game before one tamriel was drastically different from what is proposed (optional, no forced grouping, no spliting community based on VR, sharding based on system we know from dungs, normal and vet (or debuff but that is more prefered by ppl who don't want difficulty at all)).
Multiple. Times. In. Almost. Every. Thread.

Ok so here's the thing. Great post btw.

On this side of the table, many of us are sharing ideas for how to improve overland, note they are not all the same and vary in degree. However, one suggestion from various players was to make difficulty as an optional, adjustable mechanic, which many others have also suggested could be done in various ways. This suites both sides of the argument and is a reasonable accommodation - regardless of whether it can be done or not. We have identified a possible solution, one of a couple I think.

In doing so, we have produced something useful, something with definitions and something people can relate to.

On the other side of same table, from my reading of this thread and the last two I think where this was discussed, all I can remember is reading what cannot be done as well as people's posts being ripped apart and critiqued as if this was like a college essay or some sort of library publication.

I think its fine to disagree however I have yet to hear a single idea come from those opposed that suites both of us. Its just what others say cannot be done. And then their buddies will come on here and post the same thing, repeating what cannot be done a couple pages later to move the argument back.

This reminds me of my Sr Year in College and for Senior Project, the Team I got saddled with, all they could say... is what could not be done. That's a uhh... illogical argument blah blah blah. Told me I was a fool. Annnnnnd the only reason we survived and all of us graduated is because of me and my ideas that they hated at first but later on grew to accept. Smart people but no imagination.

And sometimes when solving a problem it doesn't matter how book smart you are, sometimes you have to get a little creative, even if it means acting the fool. And right now, we have a vision, we have solutions, we have ideas in motion, we have tools to build... what is it *exactly* that you all say cannot be done?!??

spartaxoxo

Nagastani wrote: »

I think its fine to disagree however I have yet to hear a single idea come from those opposed that suites both of us. Its just what others say cannot be done. And then their buddies will come on here and post the same thing, repeating what cannot be done a couple pages later to move the argument back.

This is so false and I'm so sick to death of this kind of statement. Basically everyone who has opposed a separate instance has proposed alternative solutions.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

The difficulty is what they can do about it, as I dont believe a redo of the entire old overland is a realistic solution.

Agreed 100%

I'd like to see

*Debuff food
*Challenge Banner for Story Bosses
*Daedric Rifts buffed (random event in old overland could cause vet mobs to spawn. These are easily avoided)
*A Single New Zone that's like Craglorn with a completely standalone story and a dungeon. Maybe replace one of the dungeon dlcs with this. See if it would be popular. If it's more popular than a full dungeon dlc then maybe one of the dungeon dlcs going forward could be a small adventure zone with only 1 new dungeon instead.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Overland is largely fine as it is, and I certainly would resent having new content being put on hold to overhaul the entire game with a veteran overland experience. I also share the concern with the developers that it would split the playerbase.

However, I do think there are some much lower impact things that could be done to prove the experience for myself personally.

I'd like to see some debuff food or gear (maybe even CP now that we have the armory) that is tailored towards giving negative stat modifiers that makes existing content harder. I know from fighting the crow boss this year on a low level vs the character I'm doing Overland stuff with the difference in power was significant just from using a weaker character, and that resulted in significantly higher difficulty.

I'd like to see challenge banners for the story bosses moving forward (and maybe old ones too, since that's more limited in scope than overhauling everything) that could upgrade the difficulty for veteran level players. I think something along the easier vet arena bosses would be appropriate in difficulty.

SilverBride wrote: »

What about a debuff that removes half your health and half your damage?

Vaoh wrote: »

I think the issue would be solved if there was a new section under Options > Gameplay for this.

Difficulty Slider

Debilitation Potency
“Apply Debilitation onto yourself. This effect cannot be purged. Increases your Damage Taken, reduces your Damage Dealt, and reduces your Healing Taken by the following percentage.”
Slider List: Off, 0-99%.

Allied Healing
“Apply Debilitation II onto yourself. This effect cannot be purged. Reduces the amount of Healing Dealt you provide to your pets and allies.”
Slider List: Off, 0-99%.

Difficulty Scenario
“Determines the scenarios in which Debilitation and Debilitation II are deactivated. Note: Both effects will already deactivate in Duels, PvP areas, and any content which has a Veteran counterpart.”
Slider List: None, Public Dungeons, World Events, World Bosses, (any mix of the three).

No extra rewards. No need to swap out all of your hard earned gear/skills/CP. This is the only way to go about this situation and make everyone happy imo.

XomRhoK wrote: »

Partly agree. Debuffing player not very good option from perception of player, players moslty want to become powerfull, not weaker, but in numbers and effect on combat there is no difference from debuffing player and buffing enemies. For example, player have damage 2, creature have 8 HP, player kill creature in 4 hits, you want to prolonge fight in two times you can debuff player by decreasing his damage to 1, or you can "scale" creature to 16 HP, same result. But players just don't want to debuff themselves and it's understandable. Debuffing is just a method to achieve result and it suggested because it is easier to implement, no need to mock player that he were debuffed. Debuff will be invisible for player, and it more of the wording and and getting right attitude. For example
- Overland Veteran: Rumors about your adventures are widely known, all enemies will fight against you with additional fervor, they will deal double damage against you and resist against your attacks twice as good (+100% damage done to you and +50% more resist from your attacks to overland NPCs. Dungeons, trials, duels and PvP excluded). While this option is active you will recieve special frame around your Health bar:

- Overland Veteran Hard Mode: Every citizen of Tamriel know your name and deeds, all enemies will fight for their lives against you, they will deal quadruple damage against you and resist against your attacks four times better (+300% damage done to you and +75% more resist from your attacks to overland NPCs. Dungeons, trials, duels and PvP excluded). While this option is active you will recieve special frame around your Health bar:

With smoth progression difficulty sliders it will be different, but you can see the idea.
Before i think for myself on scaling mobs, smart scaling depending on number of players and their power, but i come to one aspect that can't be avoided, in my opinion, it's a AOE attacks of the mobs. Single attacks can be scaled depending on who monster attack, but AOE can't so it will be too weak to not kill weak players, or to powerfull and will one shot weaker players. Debuffing players individually have no such problem and much easier to implement.

[snip]

I just don't want a mandatory overland, that's why I disagreed with you. That's it.

[edited for baiting]

Harvokaan

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Harvokaan wrote: »

Multiple times in this thread (and others) ppl were explaining that the game was never in state of having an optional vet difficulty because game before one tamriel

Strawman. She didn't say anything about vet overland optional proposal in that post.

The person she replied to proposed a solution that mobs scale as you level, which would make it mandatory.

She remembered having scaling mandatory mobs from One Tamriel and said that type of difficulty solution made her quit.

Context matters.

[snip] I will say it again: Argument that "vet diificulty == game before one tamriel" was raised multiple times in multiple threads, often by same ppl to reply to different solutions. It was often used (also by a person I quoted), together with info that: craglorn was hated and you propose second craglorn, difficulty before OT was hated and you propose same solution as then, we had the same solution (even when it isn't true) before one tamriel, playerbase was splitted and unhappy, it was done before and it is a waste of dev resources. Example:

SilverBride wrote: »

An optional veteran overland would split the playerbase (if enough players even utilized it, which I honestly doubt would happen), which is never a good idea. This did not work well before One Tamriel and wouldn't work well today.

This thread is full of that comparission even when ppl repeated multiple times that game before OT and what we want is something completely different.

I deliberately highlight the context here (same/similar argument agaisnt multiple different ppl and solutions, raised to discredit things that aren't really conected to "solutions implemented in eso in past"). [snip]

Also please highlight were exactly @Nagastani said his/her solution is mandatory? Because the world "optional" weren't mentioned when, after multiple threads and 39 pages of this one I think everyone understands that vet being something optional is rather mandatory for the idea to work.

[edited for baiting]

spartaxoxo

Harvokaan wrote: »

[snip] I will say it again: Argument that "vet diificulty == game before one tamriel" was raised multiple times in multiple threads, often by same ppl to reply to different solutions.

[snip]

Harvokaan wrote: »

Because the world "optional" weren't mentioned when, after multiple threads and 39 pages of this one I think everyone understands that vet being something optional is rather mandatory for the idea to work.

Nagastani is new to the conservation, none of the 39 pages applies to him.

His description did not include any language that described anything as voluntary.

Instead his suggestion was have the mobs automatically scale to the player, which would be by definition mandatory unless he described a way to make it not. Just as a toggle is by definition asking for something optional unless stated otherwise.

[edited for baiting & to remove quote]

StevieKingslayer

Also need to point out, the old elephant in the room people are forgetting about how difficult the old system was, once again being that we were also limited to whoever was around in our own faction. No grouping with a friend from another faction, no nothing. We are now no longer limited to just our own faction players being around, So that again needs to be taken into account when thinking about how terrible the old days were. Zenimax legit trapped us with only our factions and divided us from two other factions meaning we had even less help at those bosses/places than we would now if they were the same level as back then, as well as power creep.

SerafinaWaterstar

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Nagastani wrote: »

I think its fine to disagree however I have yet to hear a single idea come from those opposed that suites both of us. Its just what others say cannot be done. And then their buddies will come on here and post the same thing, repeating what cannot be done a couple pages later to move the argument back.

This is so false and I'm so sick to death of this kind of statement. Basically everyone who has opposed a separate instance has proposed alternative solutions.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

The difficulty is what they can do about it, as I dont believe a redo of the entire old overland is a realistic solution.

Agreed 100%

I'd like to see

*Debuff food
*Challenge Banner for Story Bosses
*Daedric Rifts buffed (random event in old overland could cause vet mobs to spawn. These are easily avoided)
*A Single New Zone that's like Craglorn with a completely standalone story and a dungeon. Maybe replace one of the dungeon dlcs with this. See if it would be popular. If it's more popular than a full dungeon dlc then maybe one of the dungeon dlcs going forward could be a small adventure zone with only 1 new dungeon instead.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Overland is largely fine as it is, and I certainly would resent having new content being put on hold to overhaul the entire game with a veteran overland experience. I also share the concern with the developers that it would split the playerbase.

However, I do think there are some much lower impact things that could be done to prove the experience for myself personally.

I'd like to see some debuff food or gear (maybe even CP now that we have the armory) that is tailored towards giving negative stat modifiers that makes existing content harder. I know from fighting the crow boss this year on a low level vs the character I'm doing Overland stuff with the difference in power was significant just from using a weaker character, and that resulted in significantly higher difficulty.

I'd like to see challenge banners for the story bosses moving forward (and maybe old ones too, since that's more limited in scope than overhauling everything) that could upgrade the difficulty for veteran level players. I think something along the easier vet arena bosses would be appropriate in difficulty.

SilverBride wrote: »

What about a debuff that removes half your health and half your damage?

Vaoh wrote: »

I think the issue would be solved if there was a new section under Options > Gameplay for this.

Difficulty Slider

Debilitation Potency
“Apply Debilitation onto yourself. This effect cannot be purged. Increases your Damage Taken, reduces your Damage Dealt, and reduces your Healing Taken by the following percentage.”
Slider List: Off, 0-99%.

Allied Healing
“Apply Debilitation II onto yourself. This effect cannot be purged. Reduces the amount of Healing Dealt you provide to your pets and allies.”
Slider List: Off, 0-99%.

Difficulty Scenario
“Determines the scenarios in which Debilitation and Debilitation II are deactivated. Note: Both effects will already deactivate in Duels, PvP areas, and any content which has a Veteran counterpart.”
Slider List: None, Public Dungeons, World Events, World Bosses, (any mix of the three).

No extra rewards. No need to swap out all of your hard earned gear/skills/CP. This is the only way to go about this situation and make everyone happy imo.

XomRhoK wrote: »

Partly agree. Debuffing player not very good option from perception of player, players moslty want to become powerfull, not weaker, but in numbers and effect on combat there is no difference from debuffing player and buffing enemies. For example, player have damage 2, creature have 8 HP, player kill creature in 4 hits, you want to prolonge fight in two times you can debuff player by decreasing his damage to 1, or you can "scale" creature to 16 HP, same result. But players just don't want to debuff themselves and it's understandable. Debuffing is just a method to achieve result and it suggested because it is easier to implement, no need to mock player that he were debuffed. Debuff will be invisible for player, and it more of the wording and and getting right attitude. For example
- Overland Veteran: Rumors about your adventures are widely known, all enemies will fight against you with additional fervor, they will deal double damage against you and resist against your attacks twice as good (+100% damage done to you and +50% more resist from your attacks to overland NPCs. Dungeons, trials, duels and PvP excluded). While this option is active you will recieve special frame around your Health bar:

- Overland Veteran Hard Mode: Every citizen of Tamriel know your name and deeds, all enemies will fight for their lives against you, they will deal quadruple damage against you and resist against your attacks four times better (+300% damage done to you and +75% more resist from your attacks to overland NPCs. Dungeons, trials, duels and PvP excluded). While this option is active you will recieve special frame around your Health bar:

With smoth progression difficulty sliders it will be different, but you can see the idea.
Before i think for myself on scaling mobs, smart scaling depending on number of players and their power, but i come to one aspect that can't be avoided, in my opinion, it's a AOE attacks of the mobs. Single attacks can be scaled depending on who monster attack, but AOE can't so it will be too weak to not kill weak players, or to powerfull and will one shot weaker players. Debuffing players individually have no such problem and much easier to implement.

[snip]

I just don't want a mandatory overland, that's why I disagreed with you. That's it.

Have just been reading through the thread & the discussions & arguments from both sides, and really think this post is an excellent one.

It is does seem that those who want some form of vet overland are the ones who are most demanding. All those who have shared their ‘opposition’ to their demands, or shown why they might not be feasible, have never once said ‘No’.

There seems to be support across the board for an optional setting. How is that preventing debate or shutting the argument down?

It is hard though to support people in their arguments when they appear to not like anyone disagreeing with them or pointing out that there may be flaws in their suggestion.

No-one on the “opposing” side has made any unhelpful or provocative comment like the one mentioned above. Saying a suggestion is “absolutely unacceptable” does nothing to help co-operation towards a solution that might work.

And from my personal view, I would like an optional instanced version of the MQ boss/bosses that was harder, but otherwise I have no problem with the game as it is.

[edited to remove quote]

StevieKingslayer

Tbf; If we're talking about context here, for the last few years anyone asking for anything harder has been met with scathing criticism and told to stop posting on the forums and making everyone upset (hence the point of this thread being here, and so heavily moderated.) I can see why people are a little irritated at being told to just debuff ourselves. We already have been. For years. I was personally targeted on someone elses post about veteran overland before and met with a barrage of what I can only describe as hostile nastyness via a guild chat because they recognized my name from the sig, in support of veteran overland. There is good and bad on both sides.

As I said before; The only way to get a clear determination of what the community wants (that actually -plays-) is a poll in game (bolding this because people don't seem to understand what in game means, and keep linking me polls from forums and other places), That data gets published via a forum post from the devs's, not just a dev saying something on his stream (which btw, those are his personal views, not zenimax's as a company) and then that's that. Issue solved, it can be put to bed in regards to what the community wants. People mistake the forums for "being the community", no. This is only part of the community, same as the twitch/twitter/facebook/discord/actual in game. We're all spread out, and a forum post isnt a good way to get a clear view of the community. We need an in game poll on the login screen. Simple, Quick, Done.

Parasaurolophus

Oh ... Please stop. This thread becomes "too hot" again. This can lead to its closure. If you don't like some comments, just ignore them.

Okay, a lot has been said about the difficulty, but I would like to bring up another topic regarding overland. Could the overland in the future have content that could keep players engaged for at least one or two months? Now every new chapter, every new dlc burns out in less than a week. All that remains after the completion of all quests is achievements for 30 daily quests. But I think many would agree that running delves and zerging wb is not fun at all. Therefore, can we get any content or system that would be interesting and fun and would not turn into a crazy grind?
I really liked the antique system. I liked going back to some locations, killing WB with a friend and doing other activities in the overland for the sake of leads. I like locations, I want to play more in locations, but I don't want to constantly feel like I'm doing something useless. It is the useless locations that become a week after the release.
Of course, the difficulty is very important. But even at increased difficulty, the location will be closed very quickly, although at higher difficulty it will bring more impressions to the players than now, I have no doubt about it. I would like to see some new design solutions for building content.
Also, I've never played WoW. However, every time I watch trailers, it seems to me that each new dlc is a whole big expansion. And then I look at our five new delves, two public dungeons and I feel jealous. Although I heard that WoW has been doing badly for a long time.

Sylvermynx

Been a long time since I played WoW (8 years almost) but with 2 years between releases, that game also devolved into "nothing new to do just rerun the same raids" territory.

I can't say if two years of content here comes anywhere close to what WoW gets now, don't really know anyone still playing. I also have no idea if the game's having issues, none of which is germane to much of anything regarding this debate.

I'm happy with overland as it is (and my paltry 10-12k dps depending on class) but considering everything else, if overland gets more difficult for everyone I'll probably figure out how to live with it.

SilverBride

Harvokaan wrote: »

I will say it again: Argument that "vet diificulty == game before one tamriel" was raised multiple times in multiple threads, often by same ppl to reply to different solutions. It was often used (also by a person I quoted), together with info that: craglorn was hated and you propose second craglorn, difficulty before OT was hated and you propose same solution as then, we had the same solution (even when it isn't true) before one tamriel, playerbase was splitted and unhappy, it was done before and it is a waste of dev resources. Example:

SilverBride wrote: »

An optional veteran overland would split the playerbase (if enough players even utilized it, which I honestly doubt would happen), which is never a good idea. This did not work well before One Tamriel and wouldn't work well today.

This thread is full of that comparission even when ppl repeated multiple times that game before OT and what we want is something completely different.

The comparison I made between an optional veteran overland and how things were before One Tamriel was first of all to point out that players did not like the difficulty of the veteran overland zones that were Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. According to Rich Lambert this 2/3 of the game was not being played because players did not want the difficulty in the story and questing, so they removed them. If anything the game has become more casual over time, so I don't believe there is enough interest to justify the time and cost of completely reworking overland to a difficulty that the majority of players have been shown to not want.

My second point was that the split playerbase was a bad idea back then, and would be just as bad for the game today.

Also, please explain how an optional veteran overland is different from the veteran overland zones that existed before One Tamriel, because the only difference I see is that it would be optional.

Harvokaan

SilverBride wrote: »

Harvokaan wrote: »

I will say it again: Argument that "vet diificulty == game before one tamriel" was raised multiple times in multiple threads, often by same ppl to reply to different solutions. It was often used (also by a person I quoted), together with info that: craglorn was hated and you propose second craglorn, difficulty before OT was hated and you propose same solution as then, we had the same solution (even when it isn't true) before one tamriel, playerbase was splitted and unhappy, it was done before and it is a waste of dev resources. Example:

SilverBride wrote: »

An optional veteran overland would split the playerbase (if enough players even utilized it, which I honestly doubt would happen), which is never a good idea. This did not work well before One Tamriel and wouldn't work well today.

This thread is full of that comparission even when ppl repeated multiple times that game before OT and what we want is something completely different.

The comparison I made between an optional veteran overland and how things were before One Tamriel was first of all to point out that players did not like the difficulty of the veteran overland zones that were Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. According to Rich Lambert this 2/3 of the game was not being played because players did not want the difficulty in the story and questing, so they removed them. If anything the game has become more casual over time, so I don't believe there is enough interest to justify the time and cost of completely reworking overland to a difficulty that the majority of players have been shown to not want.

My second point was that the split playerbase was a bad idea back then, and would be just as bad for the game today.

Also, please explain how an optional veteran overland is different from the veteran overland zones that existed before One Tamriel, because the only difference I see is that it would be optional.

- Optional
- Two type of instances instead of 3 (normal, vet vs AD, EP, DC) + bigger game population (more ppl in both instance types)
- no restrictions based on factions [i think this one was a major pain point of older game version, because of that if you choose to play khajiit in AD you couldn't play together with your friend who played orc in DC + other stupid problems]
- no forced quest route, for example if you dont like EP storyline, you dont need to do it, before OT decision where you go was based on zone level
- no outleveling or underleveling
- all additions and QoL accessible today vs ESO qol from 2014 (or rather lack of any)
- no quests that force you to group (you can do quests solo or in group) like in old Craglorn

SilverBride

Harvokaan wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Also, please explain how an optional veteran overland is different from the veteran overland zones that existed before One Tamriel, because the only difference I see is that it would be optional.

- Optional
- Two type of instances instead of 3 (normal, vet vs AD, EP, DC) + bigger game population (more ppl in both instance types)
- no restrictions based on factions [i think this one was a major pain point of older game version, because of that if you choose to play khajiit in AD you couldn't play together with your friend who played orc in DC + other stupid problems]
- no forced quest route, for example if you dont like EP storyline, you dont need to do it, before OT decision where you go was based on zone level
- no outleveling or underleveling
- all additions and QoL accessible today vs ESO qol from 2014 (or rather lack of any)
- no quests that force you to group (you can do quests solo or in group) like in old Craglorn

Thank you for your answer. This is a good description of how the game was before One Tamriel and clearly shows that this isn't what you, or any of us want today.

But I believe more was read into my comparison than I intended. I should have asked "Also, please explain how the difficulty of an optional veteran overland is different from the difficulty of the veteran overland zones that existed before One Tamriel, because the only difference I see is that it would be optional." I was merely trying to show that players didn't like the difficulty of the veteran overland experience before, and that it most likely wouldn't be popular today considering the large casual playerbase.

I agree that an optional veteran overland wouldn't split the playerbase into the number of different zones as it did before, but a split is still a split.

(Edited to clarify.)

spartaxoxo

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

Tbf; If we're talking about context here, for the last few years anyone asking for anything harder has been met with scathing criticism and told to stop posting on the forums and making everyone upset (hence the point of this thread being here, and so heavily moderated.) I can see why people are a little irritated at being told to just debuff ourselves. We already have been. For years. I was personally targeted on someone elses post about veteran overland before and met with a barrage of what I can only describe as hostile nastyness via a guild chat because they recognized my name from the sig, in support of veteran overland. There is good and bad on both sides.

First of all, I am sorry that someone took the time to harass you in-game. That is absolutely unacceptable behavior, and nobody should have to deal with that. I hope that user was appropriately punished.

But, completely different people who happened to share the same stance as myself or others being jerks in some other thread, does not justify hostility towards the people in this thread that share no relation to those people but a similar viewpoint on balance. That was a different thread. I myself wasn't in those threads and I don't deserve to have statements like "You're not even offering suggestions," when I have made a lot of them because of people being hostile about an idea due to the actions of completely separate people. I haven't been of perfect behavior, either and have lost my temper, but I have tried my best not to drag anything from other threads into this thread. Or to drag this thread into others. I don't have hostility towards any camp here, it's not the point of my suggestions. I understand some of ya'll just feel passionately about this topic. I do too.

The support in this thread for an optional difficulty increase is nearly universal. We all have different ideas on the best way to make that happen, but we all have the same end goal. I am suggesting a debuff not because I want to attack anyone, but because I believe it is the most feasible and fair solution.

I don't see the devs making a new instance because they have said they will not due to cost, player unity, and the amount of players like to use such a thing. I don't agree with any mandatory suggestions because I'd have to play a lot less and my family member wouldn't be able to play at all due to physical limitations. It has nothing to do with a camp. It's simply my sincerely held belief, but I am open to other suggestions. I want some kind of vet overland experience and I would use it. I just beat the hard modes of Black Drake Villa (except the secret boss) on the 29th with a PUG because I am open to challenges when my health allows me to be. I wouldn't use it all the time because some days my hands feel really great, and some days they hurt so bad that I am lucky if I can even do the endeavors. Mostly, it's in-between but on those in-between days I probably wouldn't do vet content. This is why it's crucial for me that the idea be optional. If I was punished for my CP or Level being high, I'd just be unable to play.

Franchise408

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Nagastani wrote: »

I think its fine to disagree however I have yet to hear a single idea come from those opposed that suites both of us. Its just what others say cannot be done. And then their buddies will come on here and post the same thing, repeating what cannot be done a couple pages later to move the argument back.

This is so false and I'm so sick to death of this kind of statement. Basically everyone who has opposed a separate instance has proposed alternative solutions.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

The difficulty is what they can do about it, as I dont believe a redo of the entire old overland is a realistic solution.

Agreed 100%

I'd like to see

*Debuff food
*Challenge Banner for Story Bosses
*Daedric Rifts buffed (random event in old overland could cause vet mobs to spawn. These are easily avoided)
*A Single New Zone that's like Craglorn with a completely standalone story and a dungeon. Maybe replace one of the dungeon dlcs with this. See if it would be popular. If it's more popular than a full dungeon dlc then maybe one of the dungeon dlcs going forward could be a small adventure zone with only 1 new dungeon instead.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Overland is largely fine as it is, and I certainly would resent having new content being put on hold to overhaul the entire game with a veteran overland experience. I also share the concern with the developers that it would split the playerbase.

However, I do think there are some much lower impact things that could be done to prove the experience for myself personally.

I'd like to see some debuff food or gear (maybe even CP now that we have the armory) that is tailored towards giving negative stat modifiers that makes existing content harder. I know from fighting the crow boss this year on a low level vs the character I'm doing Overland stuff with the difference in power was significant just from using a weaker character, and that resulted in significantly higher difficulty.

I'd like to see challenge banners for the story bosses moving forward (and maybe old ones too, since that's more limited in scope than overhauling everything) that could upgrade the difficulty for veteran level players. I think something along the easier vet arena bosses would be appropriate in difficulty.

SilverBride wrote: »

What about a debuff that removes half your health and half your damage?

Vaoh wrote: »

I think the issue would be solved if there was a new section under Options > Gameplay for this.

Difficulty Slider

Debilitation Potency
“Apply Debilitation onto yourself. This effect cannot be purged. Increases your Damage Taken, reduces your Damage Dealt, and reduces your Healing Taken by the following percentage.”
Slider List: Off, 0-99%.

Allied Healing
“Apply Debilitation II onto yourself. This effect cannot be purged. Reduces the amount of Healing Dealt you provide to your pets and allies.”
Slider List: Off, 0-99%.

Difficulty Scenario
“Determines the scenarios in which Debilitation and Debilitation II are deactivated. Note: Both effects will already deactivate in Duels, PvP areas, and any content which has a Veteran counterpart.”
Slider List: None, Public Dungeons, World Events, World Bosses, (any mix of the three).

No extra rewards. No need to swap out all of your hard earned gear/skills/CP. This is the only way to go about this situation and make everyone happy imo.

XomRhoK wrote: »

Partly agree. Debuffing player not very good option from perception of player, players moslty want to become powerfull, not weaker, but in numbers and effect on combat there is no difference from debuffing player and buffing enemies. For example, player have damage 2, creature have 8 HP, player kill creature in 4 hits, you want to prolonge fight in two times you can debuff player by decreasing his damage to 1, or you can "scale" creature to 16 HP, same result. But players just don't want to debuff themselves and it's understandable. Debuffing is just a method to achieve result and it suggested because it is easier to implement, no need to mock player that he were debuffed. Debuff will be invisible for player, and it more of the wording and and getting right attitude. For example
- Overland Veteran: Rumors about your adventures are widely known, all enemies will fight against you with additional fervor, they will deal double damage against you and resist against your attacks twice as good (+100% damage done to you and +50% more resist from your attacks to overland NPCs. Dungeons, trials, duels and PvP excluded). While this option is active you will recieve special frame around your Health bar:

- Overland Veteran Hard Mode: Every citizen of Tamriel know your name and deeds, all enemies will fight for their lives against you, they will deal quadruple damage against you and resist against your attacks four times better (+300% damage done to you and +75% more resist from your attacks to overland NPCs. Dungeons, trials, duels and PvP excluded). While this option is active you will recieve special frame around your Health bar:

With smoth progression difficulty sliders it will be different, but you can see the idea.
Before i think for myself on scaling mobs, smart scaling depending on number of players and their power, but i come to one aspect that can't be avoided, in my opinion, it's a AOE attacks of the mobs. Single attacks can be scaled depending on who monster attack, but AOE can't so it will be too weak to not kill weak players, or to powerfull and will one shot weaker players. Debuffing players individually have no such problem and much easier to implement.

[snip]

I just don't want a mandatory overland, that's why I disagreed with you. That's it.

[snip]

We have explained multiple times why debuffs are not a valid solution. [snip] We have come up with many, MANY ideas that don't force ANYONE into harder overland. We have all agreed to challenge banners. I have suggested separate higher difficulty zones, which don't require a rework of any existing content, and don't force anyone into them who don't want harder content. Many people have come up with loads of different solutions other than vet-overland instances of existing zones, and all of those ideas continue to be ignored [snip]

[edited for baiting, naming-and-shaming & re-quoting]

Nagastani

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

Tbf; If we're talking about context here, for the last few years anyone asking for anything harder has been met with scathing criticism and told to stop posting on the forums and making everyone upset (hence the point of this thread being here, and so heavily moderated.) I can see why people are a little irritated at being told to just debuff ourselves. We already have been. For years. I was personally targeted on someone elses post about veteran overland before and met with a barrage of what I can only describe as hostile nastyness via a guild chat because they recognized my name from the sig, in support of veteran overland. There is good and bad on both sides.

As I said before; The only way to get a clear determination of what the community wants (that actually -plays-) is a poll in game (bolding this because people don't seem to understand what in game means, and keep linking me polls from forums and other places), That data gets published via a forum post from the devs's, not just a dev saying something on his stream (which btw, those are his personal views, not zenimax's as a company) and then that's that. Issue solved, it can be put to bed in regards to what the community wants. People mistake the forums for "being the community", no. This is only part of the community, same as the twitch/twitter/facebook/discord/actual in game. We're all spread out, and a forum post isnt a good way to get a clear view of the community. We need an in game poll on the login screen. Simple, Quick, Done.

Absolutely.

And to clarify, specifically we aren't really trying to make the mobs necessarily harder, just more realistic, more uh.. believable. I believe those saying this is due to their interpretation of this side of the argument. Which to each their own, not trying to tell anyone what to think.

To be clear going forward:

We are as a whole, really looking for balance that we believe is missing from overland content characters. It is really a lack of balance, a lack of completeness that we have identified is a problem to be corrected. There is also a lack of identity for the factions we encounter that comes with this problem (including a lack of appropriate behaviors). Therefore, this is not a problem exclusively tied to combat difficulty either as it affects other story elements as well. Please note that mobs difficulty characteristics are currently driven by global settings. Like I think all of them have 9k resistance, bosses have 18k etc. So as it stands today, other than the skin textures they use and character model there really is no real variation between mobs. Or is little variation I should say which is imposed under a global policy, mandatory for every enemy found in Overland Content.

Although true, balancing the characters with their associated faction will make the mobs possibly more difficult however I must also agree, that there's no reason why we can't have the ability to adjust difficulty too. Meaning nothing is mandatory, so if you like Overland Content difficulty where it is, you can keep it that way. But with the ability to bring us more options, transcending the game's current state, extends the life of the game thru driving renewed interest in the story based on the appetite of the individual player, or their group, free to enjoy these offerings in the comfort of their own home with lesser temptation to seek out perhaps a different game that better suites these features (and start over).

SilverBride

Franchise408 wrote: »

We have explained multiple times why debuffs are not a valid solution. We have come up with many, MANY ideas that don't force ANYONE into harder overland. We have all agreed to challenge banners. I have suggested separate higher difficulty zones, which don't require a rework of any existing content, and don't force anyone into them who don't want harder content. Many people have come up with loads of different solutions other than vet-overland instances of existing zones, and all of those ideas continue to be ignored

I am not ignoring these solutions, I just don't agree that they are the best choices.

I personally do not believe a separate veteran overland is a good idea for reasons already mentioned.

I also don't believe higher difficulty zones are a good idea because they exclude players who may wish to use them, but may never be strong enough, experienced enough and/or geared enough to do so.

Also, higher difficulty zones are very different from veteran dungeons trials and arenas in that it's overland and the story, and the story should never be gated behind difficult content.

But even though I would never use these options myself, I do support a debuff and optional veteran story bosses because I believe they are the least disruptive and most fair choices, and would go a long way toward increasing satisfaction for players who want more of a challenge.

Elsonso

SilverBride wrote: »

I agree that an optional veteran overland wouldn't split the playerbase into the number of different zones as it did before, but a split is still a split.

Honestly, I don't think it would significantly split the player base. I think the overwhelming majority would simply stay in the non-vet part of the game. This is why I never expect ZOS to lift a finger in this direction.

Franchise408

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

We have explained multiple times why debuffs are not a valid solution. We have come up with many, MANY ideas that don't force ANYONE into harder overland. We have all agreed to challenge banners. I have suggested separate higher difficulty zones, which don't require a rework of any existing content, and don't force anyone into them who don't want harder content. Many people have come up with loads of different solutions other than vet-overland instances of existing zones, and all of those ideas continue to be ignored

I am not ignoring these solutions, I just don't agree that they are the best choices.

I personally do not believe a separate veteran overland is a good idea for reasons already mentioned.

I also don't believe higher difficulty zones are a good idea because they exclude players who may wish to use them, but may never be strong enough, experienced enough and/or geared enough to do so.

Also, higher difficulty zones are very different from veteran dungeons trials and arenas in that it's overland and the story, and the story should never be gated behind difficult content.

But even though I would never use these options myself, I do support a debuff and optional veteran story bosses because I believe they are the least disruptive and most fair choices, and would go a long way toward increasing satisfaction for players who want more of a challenge.

And we are telling you it won't.

Also, those who don't want a challenge already have 95% of the game. That's your choice if you choose not to go into vet level zones, just as you're not going into vet trials now

SilverBride

Franchise408 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

We have explained multiple times why debuffs are not a valid solution. We have come up with many, MANY ideas that don't force ANYONE into harder overland. We have all agreed to challenge banners. I have suggested separate higher difficulty zones, which don't require a rework of any existing content, and don't force anyone into them who don't want harder content. Many people have come up with loads of different solutions other than vet-overland instances of existing zones, and all of those ideas continue to be ignored

I am not ignoring these solutions, I just don't agree that they are the best choices.

I personally do not believe a separate veteran overland is a good idea for reasons already mentioned.

I also don't believe higher difficulty zones are a good idea because they exclude players who may wish to use them, but may never be strong enough, experienced enough and/or geared enough to do so.

Also, higher difficulty zones are very different from veteran dungeons trials and arenas in that it's overland and the story, and the story should never be gated behind difficult content.

But even though I would never use these options myself, I do support a debuff and optional veteran story bosses because I believe they are the least disruptive and most fair choices, and would go a long way toward increasing satisfaction for players who want more of a challenge.

And we are telling you it won't.

Also, those who don't want a challenge already have 95% of the game. That's your choice if you choose not to go into vet level zones, just as you're not going into vet trials now

Everyone has overland, not just casual players. And as I stated overland is the story, the very basis of this game, and that should never be gated behind difficult content.

Regardless, I believe we should just accept our different views and agree to disagree.

spartaxoxo

Franchise408 wrote: »

We have explained multiple times why debuffs are not a valid solution.

The reasons offered were

1) They are not appropriate for RPGs, which was proven completely invalid by showing RPGs with debuff gear and discussing this particular franchises long history with them. Not valid.

2)It would hurt some people's immersion (for example it would feel weird/bad to witness a player lower level than you kill faster)

3) It is not to everyone's taste

4)other people can attack what you're attacking which I don't find compelling because this is a multiplayer game and that is true of all solutions

Taste is subjective, as is immersion. I have yet to hear an argument that convinces me they aren't acceptable.

Arthtur

English isn't my native language so sorry for mistakes.

So... my idea(at least for the start):
Challenge Banners for World Bosses.

How it works:
Each WB has an Undaunted Banner like new DLC Dungeons. Using the banner moves player/group to diffrent instance (but still connected to the zone chat) with harder version of the boss.

Reasons for "Diffrent instance":
1) To avoid toxicity (changing boss difficulty to "make fun" from player/group who wants to do normal/veteran version of the boss)
2) To avoid long waiting times (when others are farming normal versions of the boss and dont want to do veteran version)

Rewards:
I dont want another Craglorn where 1 player picking up flowers gets more than entire group doing group content.

Good options(in my opinion)
1) Furnishing Items. For example:
- Vvardenfell, Shipwreck Cove - Fountain with Nereid (like in Fargrave)
2) Simple Mounts/Pets. For example:
- Vvardenfell, Nilthog's Hollow - Nix-Ox Mount
- Vvardenfell, Sulipund Grange - Mini-Hunger pet
3)Style Pages/Motifs. For example:
- Each boss in Vvardenfell has a chance to drop Ancestral Dark Elf Motif Page
4) Skins, tatoos etc.

Yes i know these rewards sounds crazy but those are just examples of rewards. If there wont be any rewards the content will be just dead.
Also adding nice rewards could add another option for making gold in game.

There would be added a new Undaunted NPC who gives a pledge to kill 3 veteran World Bosses from X zone - To help weaker players get the rewards.

Positives and negatives:
+rather easy to add veteran versions of bosses
+doesnt split the playerbase
+everyone can get a reward
+easy to test (adding this for 1 zone to see how players like it)

-a lot of rewards to create
-possible grind if rewards have low drop rate
-wont be hard with a lot of players


Well thats it for now. I will think for other options :x

My opinion on others ideas:
1) Debuff food - Sorry but i just dont like it. Im not gonna use it but it can be added for those who wants Veteran HM difficulty.
2) Veteran Instance - Depeneds. Difficulty like in Craglorn? Okay. Harder? No thanks. I dont want mobs from Vet DLC Dungeons in Overland.
3) Leaving as it is - No. Its too easy for me and i often play with my friend. Its really fun when 1 person is oneshotting everything and the 2 person is just looting stuff...

Well maybe i didnt forget anything...

SerafinaWaterstar

Nagastani wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Nagastani wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Harvokaan wrote: »

[snip] I will say it again: Argument that "vet diificulty == game before one tamriel" was raised multiple times in multiple threads, often by same ppl to reply to different solutions.

[snip]

Harvokaan wrote: »

Because the world "optional" weren't mentioned when, after multiple threads and 39 pages of this one I think everyone understands that vet being something optional is rather mandatory for the idea to work.

Nagastani is new to the conservation, none of the 39 pages applies to him.

His description did not include any language that described anything as voluntary.

Instead his suggestion was have the mobs automatically scale to the player, which would be by definition mandatory unless he described a way to make it not. Just as a toggle is by definition asking for something optional unless stated otherwise.

[edited for baiting & to remove quote]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

As I said, having read through this thread & others previously, generally I am happy with the game as it is now in overland. If I want harder stuff, I know where to go also. Optional main quest bosses would be a good idea.

I am just concerned at the cost in time & money that creating a vet copy of overland would involve, compared to how many who would use it. I would prefer that time to be spent doing things for all players.

And there is still no clarity on what exactly is meant by ‘vet’ - how is this measured?

[edited for mild derailment & to remove quote]

ZOS_Icy

Greetings all,

After removing a few off topic posts, we would like to ask everyone to keep posts on the subject at hand, as well as keeping things civil and constructive.

Thank you for your understanding.

Storms_in_Argonia

My personal preference to overland zone difficulty would be a change in how content is designed and integrated into the game, and also a soft "tiering" of zones. I also think changes in difficulty can be more fluid than what ZOS currently does. In addition, since old cp300 stat buffs are now baseline, I think a general adjustment across the board is healthy anyway. I am a very casual player. I have not yet run a group dungeon with others, but I do want to see more difficulty in some areas for immersive purposes honestly at the very least. Now obviously, it is a bit much to ask you to go and redo content (I know we've asked for the original zones to get touched up and that's something possible to think about down the line) but here is how I would prefer the game world design be layed out at this time.
Basically, you would have 3 "baselines" for zones with general stats, but also plenty of places where those baselines can break.

Tier 1 Zones:
Base game first 5 zones of Alliance story.
*baseline challenge-current game 31.4k etc.

Tier 1.5 Zones:
Coldharbour, separate zone DLCs (Wrothgar, Murkmire), and all first-zone parts of Chapter stories when there are 2 separate parts (i.e. Western Skyrim, Northern Elsweyr, Blackwood)
*baseline challenge-Cyrodil, somewhere in the 40kish health range etc.

Tier 2.0 Zones: The Part 2 dlc zones (Markarth, Deadlands etc.)
*baseline challenge-Craglorn normal mobs, not some of those weird fights that have a large spike in challenge.

Now, I think it is a very good idea to have story accessible to as much people as possible. Zone story content does not need to follow the rules of the zone tier of difficulty, or it can be less frantic at least. I don't think there should be any "hard" locks on zone content such as existed in the veteran level days. But, I also think some sense of "World Challenge" or progression or whatever you want to call it, is a good idea. I can go into craglorn as a cp 10 character and kill some stuff, I'm not asking for the zone story to be like some of the small group areas, but I can wander around and survive.

I also think zone content difficulty does not need to be so strictly segregated. I understand from a design point of view, it is nice to have an instanced space for the workflow where you just know the difficulty, the drops, and don't worry about other factors...but I think an overland change of difficulty is both immersive and fun. Why can't we have an area like a public dungeon in overland. Let's say, for example, a keep is overrun with bandits. It doesn't have to be some brilliant part of the story, just a simple fantasy power grab, but if there's a fort in a zone, and it doesn't need a brilliant story, why not make it into a public dungeon? We already have people farming dolmens

Now, my only prior mmo experience is Lotro 2007-2011, but one feature old mmorpgs had better in overland than ESO was that sense of adventure. In ESO...I know I'm going into a public dungeon. There's no drama, no suspense. It can be fun to just turn a corner in a game and go, woah, there's a fort here with some tougher foes, let's investigate. I think the strict segregation of zone difficulty and type of difficulty gives ESO a "sterile" feel sometimes. I want to feel fear, not terror, but at least a sense of caution sometimes. The roaming bosses in Deadlands are a nice idea, and I'd love to see stuff similar, but it doesn't have to be just "World Boss" type stuff that everyone zergs.

Craglorn was seen as a mistake I think, because it was pretty much an entire zone that was for groups at first. You don't need it to be one or the other. For those who played lotro back in the day, I'm thinking about places like the red bog in lonelands outside Garth Agarwen, or the harder mobs in "the foundations of stone" zone in moria, or the entire city area around Carn Dum.

Such a feature can also be used as a stepping stone. Maybe a fort in a tier 1.0 zone has mobs that are tier 2.0 baseline.

I've also seen numerous times the suggestion of hard modes for story content. Obviously, this is a big time investment to do it everywhere, so in principle I agree, but think that only the real "bosses" of a zone story should count in terms of realistic expectations. I just did stonefalls on a character, so fresh in my mind is Alexandra Conelle and Sadak. I also think these fights can be very challenging, like some world bosses. In fact, let them drop world boss gear blue or purple rarity zone drops. Honestly, if these hard mode challenges are not repeatable, maybe even give them a super rare chance of a dungeon drop from that zone. Not something that could be farmed, but something truly special that would feel special, like aetherial dust rarity though. I am not suggesting they be used for gearing up. But, injecting rarity or off-tier power spikes, even at super low odds, does add to the adventure of it all.

Now, honestly, making zones more dynamic and varied on content and difficulty is more work, and I know you want ESO plus to be regularly justified. It is tough to make business decisions, but as a player I also think this cadence of 4 content patches, 2 dungeon, 1 dlc sequel zone, and 1 main chapter zone is not going well. Release are coming across as unfinished and buggy. Companions had lots of bugfixes and other small tweaks in patches following Blackwood, and while that is understandable of any new system, so often it just feels like you guys run out of time. I honestly think going towards a trimester approach instead of strict quarterly is probably better. As a player, I would prefer more polished and fleshed-out releases. As a hypothetical example of an alternate 2021-2022. I'd probably had been fine with Markarth spring 2022, waking flame and flames of ambition type dungeon content in late summer (and if one dungeon is relevant later in the story, put it in the later dlc like deadlands), Blackwood in a more featured and fleshed out form, November (with a possible dlc dungeon move into its release), and finally, in spring 2022, Deadlands, again with possibly one of the merged dlc dungeons.

As a casual player, I'm looking at your dungeon release schedule and thinking, "how can they keep this up?", it seems like it is only going to get harder coming up with unique sets etc. I don't want a situation like WoW or SWTOR where stuff comes around every 2 years sometimes, but I wonder if you're not heading for a brick wall. Finally, the time of last gen consoles being left behind has to be approaching right? I mean I play eso on a potato computer, but didn't launch xbox one have only 5.5 effective gbs of ram? I think the series s has 8? 10 with 2 reserved for os? That's 2.5 more at least. Whether it is game animations or systems or features, if an overhaul were to happen, maybe a good time to have it would be when last gen is finally left behind and put on support-transition servers for a year or so. You could do the old tradition of a level cap increase too if you wanted to do a soft reset of the gear and difficulty curve as well; rebalance everything around a figurative level 60. I don't know what the plans are for the game for the future, but I do feel like it is getting a bit sparse on "meaty" content, and from a consumer perspective it just feels like we're in rapid fire mode of "that'll do" content releases. Making overland more dynamic and interesting would make the world and gameplay more interesting and far less bland.
Thanks.

spitfire1525

majority of the player base is casual. i.e. - accessible relatively easy content. you want hard content make trials larger and harder. or have public raid dungeons that are meant to be more challenging.

leave overland content as is. hard content should be instanced zone ,as it caters to the smaller % of population.

Tornaad

What if they simply added a hard mode option you could enable before you went into different overland dungeons? It would be outside of the dungeon and create two separate instances of the dungeon. Anyone who did not activate the hard mode would be put into one dungeon and anyone who activates it would be put into another. The rest of the content for just fighting overland mobs would be unchanged.

Draeconix

Disclaimer: I have not read the full 39 pages of posts here but I think I get the gist.

Before we get too far down the rabbit hole, and maybe some of this was said earlier, but let's remember that all players are on the same overland area (at least for a given server). They all see the same instance of <insert enemy here>. If you change the difficulty for one person on the server, you change it for everyone. I love the idea of enemies scaling with your level but that isn't practical for overland content. Anything that forces you to go through a "door" however can easily be adjusted for your character or group but the door for overland content is logging in to the server. So what you could do is create a server for higher difficulty settings which you could opt into. This would give players who wanted a challenge an option and players who wanted to play casually an option. I think this may be the only way to get harder overland content without ruining the experience.

Honestly, I would much rather see less emphasis placed on group content and more on solo content since I mostly play solo. My schedule is too random to play on a regular basis to make group events nigh impossible. Plus I am a very random player. One day I might do some questing and the next I am decorating and the next collecting materials. I'd like to be able to complete some of these dungeons (used generically) without needing to group up with 3-11 other people. They should create a solo instance for all that type of content.

FlopsyPrince

Balancing any changes here would take SIGNIFICANT development time, no matter how it was done, at least it would if you wanted to make sure no unintentional problems weren't introduced.

That is why I seriously doubt the change will/would ever happen.

NeeScrolls

Draeconix wrote: »

Disclaimer: I have not read the full 39 pages of posts here but I think I get the gist.

Check it out when you can, cuz it's actually a pretty good read & thread. Some pages predictably devolved into the standard polarized 'echo chamber' of replies, but for the most part i found it to be a rather robust & interesting debate.

Draeconix wrote: »

Before we get too far down the rabbit hole,

Some people are already down there lol you'll see if/when you read the 39 pages ^

Draeconix wrote: »

Honestly, I would much rather see less emphasis placed on group content and more on solo content since I mostly play solo.

One problem: ESO is still technically a MMORPG ( Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game) .

For obvious reasons, there are still certain single-player aspects within the MMO framework. But otherwise, most of ESO is at it's core meant to be GROUPED. And, imho, if players crave strictly solo content they should get it from 'Skyrim' . (the single-player game, not the ESO map zone )

Draeconix wrote: »

I'd like to be able to complete some of these dungeons (used generically) without needing to group up with 3-11 other people. .

You already can, with the implementation of 'companions system' (which i finally learned about recently myself, much to my surprise) ...combined of course with knowing your Class & build & tactics & mechs, etc. etc.

Elsonso

NeeScrolls wrote: »

Draeconix wrote: »

Honestly, I would much rather see less emphasis placed on group content and more on solo content since I mostly play solo.

One problem: ESO is still technically a MMORPG ( Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game) .

For obvious reasons, there are still certain single-player aspects within the MMO framework. But otherwise, most of ESO is at it's core meant to be GROUPED. And, imho, if players crave strictly solo content they should get it from 'Skyrim' . (the single-player game, not the ESO map zone )

Group content and MMORPG are not the same thing. The MMORPG allows for group content, and they travel in the same company, but an MMORPG is not required to be entirely group content, or even have formal groups, to be an MMORPG.

As an MMORPG, ESO can have accessible overland content that does not require grouping to play, which offers solo play and ad-hoc grouping with others, while also having private areas where grouping is the norm, or even required.

I would like to see "story mode" for the dungeons. There are a lot of dungeons out there that I have only done in PUGs, and while I have done the quest, I have no idea what happened in that dungeon, other than the bosses got stomped.